Τρίτη, 5 Απριλίου 2016

Human Rights Council / Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review / Twenty-first session / 19–30 January 2015 / Summary prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 and paragraph 5 of the annex to Council resolution 16/21 / Turkey* / United Nations A/HRC/WG.6/21/TUR/3

Human Rights Council

Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review

Twenty-first session

19–30 January 2015

Summary prepared by the Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) of the
annex to Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 and paragraph 5 of the annex to
Council resolution 16/21

Turkey*

The present report is a summary of 28 stakeholders’
submissions1 to the universal
periodic review. It follows the general guidelines adopted by the Human Rights
Council in its decision 17/119.

It does not contain any opinions, views or
suggestions on the part of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights (OHCHR), nor any judgement or determination in relation to
specific claims.

The information included herein has been systematically
referenced in endnotes and, to the extent possible, the original texts have not
been altered.

As provided for in Human Rights Council resolution 16/21, where appropriate,
a separate section is provided for contributions by the national human rights institution
of the State under review that is accredited in full compliance with the Paris Principles.

The full texts of all submissions received are available on the OHCHR website.

The
report has been prepared taking into consideration the periodicity of the
review and developments during that period.

* The present
document was not edited before being sent to United Nations translation
services.

United Nations A/HRC/WG.6/21/TUR/3

General Assembly Distr.: General

27 October 2014

Original: English

Information provided by stakeholders

A. Background and framework

1. Scope of international obligations2

1. JS10, AI and JS7 urged Turkey to ratify OP-ICESCR.3 AI and JS7
encouraged ratifying ICPPED.4 HRW and JS7 urged Turkey to immediately accede to the
ICC Statute.5 JS7 urged
ratifying OP-CRPD.6 JS7 and JS12 recommended ratifying UNESCO Convention against
Discrimination in Education.7 HRA recommended Turkey to become a party to Rome
Statute of International Criminal Court and ratify the additional protocols of Geneva
Conventions.8 The ICC
recommended ratifying the Optional Protocol to the CRC on a communications
procedure.9

2. JS7 and CSW urged lifting reservations to Article
27 of the ICCPR, Article 22 of the ICERD, Article 13(3) and 13(4) of the
ICESCR, Articles 17, 29 and 30 of the CRC and JS7 and the CoE urged withdrawal
of reservations to the geographical restriction to the 1967 Protocol to the
1951 Refugees Convention.10 ECLJ also urged withdrawing the reservation to Article
13 of the ICESCR.11 HRW and ECLJ urged Turkey to reconsider withdrawing its reservation to
Article 27 of the ICCPR which limited the Religious Freedom of Minorities.12

2. Constitutional and legislative framework

3. AI stated that the promised overhaul of the
Constitution has yet to be completed. Despite a series of legislative
amendments, provisions in the Penal Code remain a barrier to free expression.13 HRW recommended
the complete revision of the 1982 constitution to ensure no provisions impede
the enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms and rule of law.14

4. AI, JS4, JS6, JS11, LLG and JS7 recommended
amending Article 26 of the Constitution to ensure the permissible grounds for
restricting the right to freedom of expression are consistent with
international human rights standards; repeal provisions of the Penal Code
directly and unfairly limiting the right to freedom of expression, including Articles
301, 318, 215, and 125; remove excessive temporal and geographic restrictions organising
public assemblies, and simplify notification requirements for demonstrations.15 JS6 and JS11
recommended Turkey to repeal paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 216 of the Penal Code.16 HRA, JS6 and LLG
recommended lifting of the obstacles against the freedom of expression and
freedom of association. In this context, Articles 85,132, 216, 218, 285, 286, 288,
289, 305, 217, 301, 220/6-7-8, 222, 226, 314/3 and 318 of Turkish Penal Code
(TCK) restricting freedom of expression, should be immediately amended.17

5. JS4, JS7 and JS11 recommended the abolishing of Law
2911 on Meetings and Demonstrations.18

6. HRA recommended enacting a law on hate crimes.19

7. PI, LLG, JS6 and RWB recommended to repeal the
April 2014 amendments to Law No 6532, the February 2014 amendments to Law No
5651 on regulation of publications on the internet, enact data protection
legislation complying international standards.20

8. HRW, RWB, ISHR and JS7 urged Turkey to review the
TCK, the Anti-Terror Law (TMK), revisions to the MIT and other laws that
restrict freedom of expression, association, and assembly, and the right to
access information, and amend or repeal restrictive provisions.21 JS6 recommended
a comprehensive reform to counter-terrorism legislation, including Article 6/2
and 7/2 of the TMK and Articles 220/6, 220/8 and 314 of the TCK, to narrow
definitions of ‘terrorism’, ‘organised crime’, and ‘propaganda’, and to ensure
that the genuine purpose and demonstrable effect of any restriction on freedom
of expression is proportionate to protect a legitimate national security
interest.22 AI, CSW, ISHR
and JS7 recommended ensuring that the application of all articles of the Penal
Code and the Anti- Terrorism Law (TMK) are in line with international standards
on the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly.23

9. HRFT noted lack of comprehensive approach to the
right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of
international human rights law and recommended repealing statute of limitations
on prosecution of such violations.24

10. The CoE recommended strengthening criminal law
provisions against racism, in particular by making racist motivation an
aggravating circumstance for all ordinary offences.25

12. ISHR recommended the development of laws and
policies to recognise and protect the work of HRDs.27

13. The ICC noted advances in transposing CRC into
Turkish legal system, and recommended harmonising laws with the CRC, its
protocols and other international child rights instruments.28 The ICC
recommended raising the age of marriage to 18.29

3. Institutional and human rights infrastructure and
policy measures

14. AI, HRW, HRFT, CSW and JS7 noted that the National
Human Rights Institution (NHRI), established in June 2012, lacks independence
and resources and recommended amending the Law to ensure compliance with Paris
Principles.30

15. AI and JS7 noted that the proposed Equality and
Non-Discrimination Institution and Independent Police Complaints Mechanism have
not been introduced.31

17. JS7 observed that the National Human Rights Action
plan took no account of recommendations accepted by Turkey in the first UPR.33

18. HRFT and LLG noted that the prohibition against
torture and inhuman and degrading treatment remains ineffective and impunity
for rights violations against prisoners in particular continues. They urged
establishing an independent authority to investigate complaints against law
enforcement officers suspected of torture and ill-treatment.34

19. JS7 stated that Turkey has neither translated the
UPR recommendations into Turkish, nor established any comprehensive, effective
or transparent follow-up system. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs launched a web
site to enable civil society organizations (CSOs) to contribute to the
reporting process however without clarity concerning incorporation of CSO input
and whether the State Report draft will be discussed with wider civil society.35

20. JS10 recommended Turkey to reconcile the Turkish
legal framework on land, housing and urban renovation/rehabilitation with
international human rights standards, particular with ICESCR. They urged Turkey
to reform social housing policy, apply the principle of non-discrimination and
to respect extraterritorial obligations on the economic, social and cultural
rights.36

B. Cooperation with human rights mechanisms

Cooperation with special procedures

21. CSW recommended Turkey to respond to all
outstanding requests from Special Procedures and implement recommendations made
by all recognized independent experts and treaty bodies regarding its human
rights obligations.37

C. Implementation of international human rights
obligations, taking into account applicable international humanitarian law

1. Equality and non-discrimination

23. The CoE noted the discrimination against various
groups including non-Muslim minority groups, Alevis, Roman, Kurds, refugees and
asylum seekers in various fields including education, housing and health.39

24. AI stated that the government has failed to bring
forward Constitutional amendments or new domestic legislation to prohibit
discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity.40 AI, ERT and JS2
noted that despite agreeing to guarantee nondiscrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation and gender identity the government has failed to table
Constitutional amendments or domestic legislation to prohibit discrimination on
such grounds. They recommended incorporating the non-discrimination provisions
in the Constitution and domestic law and take administrative measures to
prohibit and prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and
gender identity.41 JS2 stated that the lack of explicit legal protection has amounted to a
tacit legal endorsement of acts of violence and discrimination. JS2 observed
that LGBT faces discrimination in employment, freedom of assembly and
association, in addition to the discriminatory Treatment of Inmates and army’s
prejudicial policies toward them.42 ERT recommended the enactment of comprehensive
anti-discrimination legislation, sexual orientation and gender identity as protected
characteristics.43

25. JS11 noted that since 2010, a number of civil
society groups in Turkey have been actively targeted by the authorities to
prevent them from promoting rights of minorities and LGBTI. They urged Turkey
to create an enabling environment for civil society.44

2. Right to life, liberty and security of the person

26. AI, LLG, CoE and JS11 observed that largely
peaceful mass demonstrations held in opposition to the urban development plan
for Istanbul’s Taksim Gezi Park in May 2013, spread across the country within
weeks and raised concerns about disproportionate, excessive and deadly use of
force and mass arrests carried out by security forces in blatant disregard of
their national and international obligations to protect the right to freedom assembly.
In 2013, security forces forcefully dispersed a total of 1134 protests, 774 of which
were held at Gezi Park. Thus, resulting in killing of eight protestors and one
police officer, more than 8,000 people had been injured including over 61
severe injuries. Some peaceful protestors were subject to arbitrary arrest and
detention for organising or participating in nonviolent protests. In 2013, 1309
people were investigated in 17 criminal investigations and 1000 people were
tried in court with different charges. A number of propeace and human rights
activists have also been prosecuted for taking part in peaceful assemblies for
alleged links to terrorist organizations. The indictment accepted by an Istanbul
court on 24 December 2013 accused a total of 255 protesters of “producing propaganda
for a terrorist organization” and “illegal possession of dangerous substances.”
Deficits and inconsistencies in Turkey’s legal framework allow authorities to
prohibit the right to exercise of freedom of assembly. There is no indication
that the authorities have attempted to bring policing in line with
international human rights standards on the use of force or even the Ministry
of Interior’s own regulations.45 HRW noted that the government’s response to the Taksim
Gezi Park protests and in general towards antigovernment protests, has
demonstrated its intolerance of the right to peaceful assembly.46

27. JS7 welcomed lifting the time limitation for the
investigations of torture in order to combat impunity. However, scope of the
amendment did not extend to the human rights violations committed after the
September 1980 military coup and against the Kurdish civilian population in the
1990s.47 HRA documented
843 cases of prisoners in 2013, complaining of torture and ill-treatment. They
also reported violations to the rights of prisoners and the poor conditions of
prisoners, such as visitations, access to lawyers, distances, and health issues
and they recommended improving treatment of children in prisons and detention
centers.48 The CoE noticed
a downward trend in recent years in both the incidence and the severity of
ill-treatment by law enforcement officials. As regards conditions of detention,
many of the prisons visited were overcrowded, barely coping with the
ever-increasing prison population.49 The CoE reported on allegations of physical
illtreatment of juvenile inmates by prison staff at Sincan Juvenile Prison and
in Gaziantep Etype Prison. At Maltepe Prison, the delegation received
allegations of excessive use of force by prison officers when intervening to
stop inter-prisoner violence. Various recommendations are made to prevent
ill-treatment of juveniles in the future.50

28. AI welcomed fewer reports of torture or other
ill-treatment in official places of detention since the UPR 2010 albeit with an
increase in reports of ill-treatment by law enforcement officials and excessive
use of force by police following street protests. AI recommended Turkey to
carry out unannounced visits to all places of detention.51 JS11 recommended
that security forces in charge of crowd control should be equipped with
nonlethal weapons and provided training on the UN Basic Principles on the Use
of Force and Firearms.52

29. JS2 and JS7 revealed that between 2010 and June
2014, 41 individuals believed to have been killed due to their real or imputed
sexual orientation or gender identity. Judges have routinely used Article 29 of
the Turkish Criminal Code to reduce the sentences of those who have killed LGBT
individuals.53

30. JS7 reported that violence against women, fostered
by gender inequality, results in the loss of the lives of hundreds of women
each year with no policy or preventive measures in place.54 ERT recommended
taking measures to eradicate gender-based violence.55 31. JS7 stated that child marriages account for
around 23% of all marriages, 91% of them girls.56

32. GIEACPC, ICC and JS7 noted that corporal
punishment of children is lawful despite recommendations to prohibit it by the
CRC, the CAT, the ICESCR, and the European Committee of Social Rights.
Additionally, Turkey accepted during the 1st cycle to prohibit this practice, while no progress
yet. They highlighted that corporal punishment is still lawful and strongly
recommended enacting and implementing legislation to ensure its complete
prohibition in all settings.57

33. JS7 was concerned with child marriages
particularly for girls.58 They reported that violence against women resulted in
the loss of lives of hundreds of women each year.59 ERT recommended taking measures to eradicate
gender-based violence.60

34. JC commended taking steps against the scourge of
human trafficking, They encouraged Turkey to fully bring human trafficking laws
in line with international standards.61

3. Administration of justice, including impunity, and
the rule of law

35. AI noted Turkey’s acceptance to recommendation to
ensure the independence of the judiciary; however, legal changes brought,
notably those made to the Higher Council of Judges and Prosecutors, increasing
the powers of the Minister of Justice, and the transfer of thousands of police
officers and scores of prosecutors and judges had adverse impacts. The increased
politicization of the judiciary threatens the right to a fair trial.62 OSCE/ODIHR noted
concerns over decreasing independence of the Turkish judiciary.63 HRW and JS7 urged
Turkey to strengthen the independence of judges and prosecutors from the executive.64 HRW called for
ending government interference in the criminal justice system and emphasised on
accountability of public officials.65

36. LLG and JS5 noted that lawyers defending client’s
civil and political rights are frequently subjected to judicial harassment as
the state wrongly identifies them as accomplices. They noted lack of effective
guarantees for lawyers to perform their duties without interference and
reprisals.66 JS5 recommended
preventing the prosecution or other sanctioning on improper grounds of lawyers;
ensure that the Bar Associations can function properly and executive bodies of
the bar associations are free to exercise their functions without external
interference; crimes, harassment and other violations against lawyers are effectively
investigated and those responsible are held accountable; and allow lawyers to consult
and communicate with their clients freely and in full confidentiality.67

37. AI, JS7 and HRW were concerned over the brutally
crushed anti-government “Gezi Park protests” that took place across Turkey from
May to July 2013. Ever since, the police continued to use excessive and
arbitrary force to prevent or disperse demonstrations.68 HRW and JS7 reported that in May 2013 police charged
thousands of individuals involved in the protests—in Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir
and other cities. Scores of people faced additional terrorism charges in
connection with the protests.69 HRW documented nine demonstrators and one police
officer died in the course of demonstrations between June 2013 and May 2014.70

38. HRFT observed that there was no comprehensive
approach to the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross
violations of international human rights law involving enforced disappearances,
the exhumation of mass graves or effective and independent investigations into
alleged cases of extrajudicial killings that took place in 1990’s, related with
Kurdish issue.71 JS7 recommended
amending the law concerning statutory time limits and other obstacles to the
prosecution of members of security forces and public officials for killings,
forced disappearances, and torture committed during the State of Emergency period
took place between 1987 and 2002.72

39. HRW reported that the Security Directorate’s
inspectorate launched administrative investigations into the conduct of police
officers, for the excessive use of force during the Gezi protests, by June 2014
there was little progress in most criminal investigations concerning police use
of excessive force.73 AI and HRW noted that those investigations have been characteristically
flawed, resulting in near total impunity for police abuses.74 CSW urged Turkey
to amend legal and judicial structures to ensure independence and impartiality
of the judiciary and commence investigations in order to ensure all victims of rights
violations receive reparations.75 JS7 was concerned with the amendments made to the Law
on Police Duties and Responsibilities in June 2007, given the broad mandate to
the police to stop and search with increased authority to use lethal weapons.76 HRW concluded that
the government has not honored its pledges taken at its UPR in 2010 to take
bold steps to combat impunity.77

40. LLG observed that during the first 9 months of the
year 2013, 842 women were killed illustrating the situation continues to remain
alarming.78 HRW noted that
police and courts still regularly fail to protect women granted protection
orders under the 2012 Law on the Protection of the Family and Prevention of
Violence against Women.79

4. Right to privacy, marriage and family life

41. PI noted the absence of data protection
legislation permits rights-limiting practices and that in the absence of a
strong data protection regime, biometric data is open to misuse and abuse.80 PI, LLG, JS6 and
RWB observed that the National Intelligence Agency (MİT) law in April 2014
undermines the right to privacy by permitting the agency unfettered access to
data without judicial oversight or review.81

42. PI, LLG, JS6 and RWB were concerned with expanding
the powers of the MİT, empowering it access to private data, documents, and
information about individuals without the need for a court order or permission
from relevant bodies. The law makes provision of all such information to MİT
obligatory and overrides provisions in any other laws or bylaws limiting the provision
of such data. Turkey’s laws in general fall short of enshrining clear
limitations on the scope of retention and access to private data.82

43. JS7 noted that the Internet Law and the recent
amendments to the law of the Communication Directorate were designed to censor
and silence political speech and privacy.83

5. Freedoms of religion or belief, expression,
association and peaceful assembly, and right to participate in public and
political life

44. JS3, JS12, ECLJ, CSW and JC noted the positive steps
taken with legislative Decrees’ in 2011 and 2013 to return some of the
property, however they observed that religious or belief communities are
deprived of rights, such as the right to own or hire property to use as place
of worship, establish charitable organisations, open a bank account, or sign
contracts. The right to teach a religion or belief is not protected in the
Constitution, and is by far the most restricted part of freedom of religion or
belief in Turkey.84 JS12 recommended restoring all unlawfully expropriated property
belonging to minority foundations.85 JS3 reported on sporadic violence against members of
religious communities in 2013 and 2014 with attacks targeting places of
worship.86 ECLJ noted
Turkey’s Reservation to paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the ICESCR as Turkish laws
limit the ability of parents to provide for their children’s religious and
moral education.87

45. JS6, JS11, RWB and HRA were greatly concerned by
legislative and extra-legal measures curbing civil society activism and the
freedom of association and by undue and arbitrary restrictions on freedom of
expression, independence of the media and access to information. RWB
recommended respecting media pluralism and independence.88

46. AI, JS4, JS6, JS7, RWB and HRW observed that in
2010 at the first UPR, Turkey accepted a number of recommendations on the right
to freedom of expression, including to guarantee this right for journalists,
writers and editors, and to adjust national legislation in line with
international human rights standards. Despite judicial reform packages endorsed
between 2010 and 2014, eight recommendations that expressly requested the
abolition or revision of specific laws that impact on the capacity of artists
and creative workers to practice their profession did not enjoy the support of
Turkey. A series of four legislative reform packages were enacted between March
2011 and April 2013. The reforms attempted to create more clarity around
‘terrorist propaganda’ under the Anti-Terror Law (TMK), and adding the need for
evidence of ‘clear and imminent threat to public order’ when considering
prosecution against ‘praise for a crime and criminals’ under Penal Code Article
215, changes that arose out of the peace process. Many laws and codes still
contain very specific regulations that restrict freedom of expression that has
deteriorated since 2010 UPR. During the period 2010-2014, Turkey under the TMK
and the TCK continued to prosecute journalists, writers, editors, publishers,
translators, civil/political rights activists, lawyers, elected officials and
students for exercising their rights to freedom of expression. Prosecutions are
also brought under anti-terrorism laws and articles of the Penal Code. The number
of journalists imprisoned based on various articles of the TMK and the TCK,
solely for their journalism activities have increased.89

47. PI, LLG, AI, JS4, JS6, JS7, RWB and HRW observed
that in February 2014, a controversial amendment to the Internet Law No 5651
came into force allowing the Turkish Telecommunications Authority (TIB) to
order the removal of content from websites, in some cases without having first
obtained a court order. This law resulted in blocking access to YouTube website
for a number of months. Civil society groups estimate that, as of June 2014,
more than 44,000 websites were blocked by the TIB. The new law not only has implications
for the right to freedom of expression, but also the right to privacy. In February
2014, the government passed amendments to the already restrictive Internet Law which
increased the powers of the authorities to block or remove content. Both
blocking orders were subsequently lifted following rulings by the
Constitutional Court.90

48. HRW reported that criminal defamation laws are
regularly applied as politicians frequently win cases against their critics for
“insult”.91

49. HRA recommended that the Law on Political Parties
should be amended; obstacles to democracy within political parties should be
suspended.92 JS11 were
concerned with the provisions found under Law on Associations (Law No: 5253)
and the Law on Foundations (Law No: 5737) which endow the authorities with
broad powers to interfere and arbitrarily dissolve CSOs.93 OSCE/ODIHR noted
that the Constitution and legislation continue to unduly limit freedoms of
expression, and association and electoral rights. There is also the need to
ensure the equality of vote weight among constituencies.94 ISHR noted the
two accepted recommendations concerning human rights defenders (HRDs) however
HRDs continue to complain of judicial harassment and growing repression of
civil society as well as failure to hold perpetrators accountable.95 JS11 noted that
a number of human rights defenders, have been subjected to stigmatization and
slanderous public campaigns by officials and a number of HRDs have been
detained and imprisoned under specious charges.96

50. AI ISHR and LLG observed that hundreds of criminal
prosecutions are brought every year against political activists, human rights
defenders, journalists, lawyers and others under articles of the Penal Code and
anti-terrorism provisions generally for political dissent.97

51. HRW reported that thousands of individuals have
been prosecuted over the past five years on the charge of “membership of an
armed organization” (article 314, of the TMK and the TCK) for activities
amounting to nonviolent political association.98 HRW, ISHR and RWB reported that Turkey has prosecuted
scores of journalists over the past four years, placing many in pre-trial
detention for extended periods. During 2013, scores of media workers were fired
from their jobs. RWB recommended Turkey to ensure the protection of journalists
covering demonstrations and bring to justice the perpetrators of police
violence against media professionals.99

52. JS9, JS3 and JS7 reported that conscientious
objection to compulsory military service is not permitted and Turkey has not
established a domestic legal framework to recognise this right in line with
international human rights standards.100 EAJCW complained that Jehovah’s Witnesses faces denial
of this right. They urged Turkey to refrain from imposing repeated fines and
threats of imprisonment against them for their conscientious objection to
military service.101 JS9 reported that male Turkish citizens who have not performed military
service were unable to undertake any activities which require documentation
from the state as a result.102 AI recommended the adoption of laws that recognize and
guarantee the right to conscientious objection to military service.103

53. ERT and JS7 noted that despite achievements in
strengthening gender equality in accordance with the accepted recommendations
in the first cycle, progress has been slow in the areas of political
participation, employment and representation of women in decisionmaking. Currently
women are only 14% of all members in the Grand National Assembly and only one
of the 26 members of the Council of Ministers. ERT recommended taking measures
to combat discrimination against women and to promote gender equality, in employment
and public and political life.104 JS7 highlighted that the main causes constitute temporary
measures and policies not directly ingrained in the Constitution, with no provisions
set forth in the Laws on Political Parties or on Parliamentary Elections.105

6. Right to work and to just and favourable conditions
of work

54. JS7 stated that although the minimum legal age for
work is set to 15, the number of 6-14 year-old working is around 300,000.106

55. HRW noted the low female labour force participation.107

7. Right to social security and to an adequate
standard of living

56. AI noted urbanization resulted in forced evictions
and the violation of the right to adequate housing, in areas populated by
poorest and most marginalized groups. The residents have not been offered
adequate compensation or affordable alternative housing thus resulting in
sub-standard living and deepened poverty.108

57. JS10 noted constitution recognizes (Articles 56,
57) the right to decent housing. JS10 reported on the regressive laws impeding
the realization of housing rights and outright violations of the right to
adequate housing. Amended laws concerning renewal and rehabilitation, between2003–06,
have had retrogressive effects on this right. JS10 reported that in Istanbul Sulukule,
the well-known Roma neighbourhood since Byzantine times, was demolished and
evicted via Law 5366 followed by demolition of Tarlabaşı, another historical
low-income neighbourhood inhabited mostly by vulnerable groups such as Roma, IDP
Kurdish population, migrants, LGBT and refugees. JS10 observed that the Roma community
is the most-affected by the current “urban transformation” policy, displacing about
10,000 Roma over the past seven years.109

8. Right to health

58. HRFT noted that recent amendments to the Law on
Health Services require punishment for providing “unauthorized” medical
services during emergencies.110

59. JS1 noted that at the first review in 2010, Turkey
received 44 recommendations related to sexual and reproductive health and
rights, of which eight are related to the issue of abortion were accepted. JS1
recommended developing accessible, high quality, cost effective and sustainable
health policies; undertake a public awareness raising campaign informing women
of their right to abortion; to remove all forms of discrimination against women
including in accessing the health services.111

60. HRFT recommended abolishing the legal restrictions
on the release conditions of sick inmates and stop solely relying on the
Forensic Medicine Institution reports.112 HRA recommended amending the existing legislation in
order to cover all prisoners facing serious health risks without any criteria.113

9. Persons with disabilities

61. ERT noted Turkey’s acceptance to recommendations
aimed at increase in employment for persons with disabilities noted continued
prevalence of inequality in employment and lack of access to public buildings and
transport infrastructure. They recommended taking steps to implement the
Convention on CRPD and to prevent discrimination based on disability.114

10. Minorities and indigenous peoples

62. HRW and ECLJ urged Turkey to end discrimination
against the Alevi Muslim minority by legally recognizing their meeting houses
(cemevi) as places of worship.115 ECLJ called on the Working Group to inquire about the
number of churches and places of worship which have been confiscated and
address religious minorities’ ability to raise their children according to
their own religious and moral beliefs.116 JC, JS12 and CSW observed that despite the secularism
affirmed by Turkey’s constitution, non-Muslim religious communities are
severely discriminated against and denied legal status and recognition as religions.117 CSW urged Turkey
to implement effective constitutional and legislative reform so as to curb
discrimination of religious minorities and ensure their treatment is commensurate
with international obligations to which Turkey is party. CSW recommended Turkey
to proactively accommodate non-Muslim minorities and address their
socioeconomic concerns; promote inter-faith harmony and understanding in order
to change societal perceptions of and hostility towards non-Muslim communities.118

63. JS12 stated that Assyrian Christians are
indigenous people and they have not been able to open new church since Turkey’s
pre-Republic era, and denied to train clergy. They recommended removal of all
bureaucratic and administrative obstacles preventing non- Muslims from freely
opening places of worship.119

64. LLG noted that accessing education in mother
tongue in the public school system for Kurds and other minority groups is still
prevented.120 ERT noted that
Turkey accepted the recommendation on the use of languages and in September
2013, a package of democratic reforms was announced, aimed at improving the
situation for the Kurdish minority. ERT recommended removing restrictions on
the use of languages other than Turkish in political and public life and
provide opportunities for teaching of minorities’ languages.121

11. Migrants, refugees and asylum seekers

65. OSCE/ODIHR noted that Turkey’s legal frameworks of
migrant integration measures are unfavourable for integration. Turkey also has
the weakest protections against discrimination as a dedicated
anti-discrimination law and agency are still lacking and pending approval by
Parliament.122

66. The CoE was concerned at the conditions detainees
as major shortcomings were found in several of the detention centres they
visited, in particular at Ağrı and Edirne. It became evident that they were
detained without legal safeguards.123

67. The CoE recommended exempting asylum-seekers and
refugees from the payment of residence fees.124

12. Internally displaced persons

68. JS8 noted that a significant part of the region
where Kurdish people live is declared as “military zone” and de-humanized. They
recommended the removal of land mines, rehabilitation of infrastructure and
settlements and elimination of the village Guards System. The Law no. 5233 for
the compensation of damages has no allocated budget to compensate for damages
incurred by displacement. They recommended the state to apologize for damages
caused and promote co-existence- including enactment of social peace law and
establishing a truth commission to restore justice and provide remedies for the
loss of rights in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles and the ICESCR.125

13. Human rights and counter-terrorism

69. JS4 noted that Turkey’s Anti Terror Law (TMK) has
been subject to acute criticism for its overly broad definition of terrorism.
They recommended to revoke Articles 6/2 and 7/2 of the Law that penalise
propaganda for or distribution of material by ‘terrorist’ organisations and
which have led to many convictions that breach free expression guarantees.126 HRA recommended
the suspension of Anti-Terror Law.127

70. JS6 and HRW recommended Turkey to cease the abuse
of anti-terror legislation and the penal code to prosecute journalists,
bloggers, activists and other civil society actors, release the detainees, and
drop pending charges against individuals without evidence of engagement with
armed groups.128

71. JS7 observed that unfair trials continue to pose a
problem especially in criminal proceedings under counter-terrorism legislation,
additionally, prosecutions launched under counter-terrorism legislation and
convictions were based on incomplete evidence.129

A/HRC/WG.6/21/TUR/3

12

Notes

1 The stakeholders
listed below have contributed information for this summary; the full texts of all
original submissions are available at: www.ohchr.org.

Civil society Individual
submissions:

AI Amnesty International, London (United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland);

39 CoE, p. 8. CoE,
p. 7. See also the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance on
Turkey, adopted on 10 December 2010 and published on 8 February 2011.

40 AI, p.2, 4.

41 AI, p.2, 6, ERT.
P. 7 and JS2, p. 6, 10.

42 JS2, p. 1, 5, 8
and 9.

43 ERT. P. 1.

44 JS11. P. 3, 11.

45 AI, p.1, LLG, p.
7, 8, JS11, p. 10, 11 and CoE, p. 3, 4. See also the report by Nils Muižnieks, Commissioner
for Human Rights of the Council of Europe following his visit to Turkey from 1
to 5 July 2013, Strasbourg, 26 November 2013. See also the attached response of
the Turkish Government comments on 21 November 2013 in the CoE submission to
the UPR.

46 HRW, p. 2, JS7,
p. 4.

47 JS7, p. 6.

48 HRA, p. 4-6.

49 CoE, p. 1. See
also the Report to the Turkish Government on the visit to Turkey carried out by
the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (CPT), from 4 to 17 June 2009, Strasbourg, 31 March 2011.
See also the response of the Turkish Government to the report of the European
Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (CPT) on its visit to Turkey from 4 to 17 June 2009, Strasbourg, 31
March 2011.

50 CoE, p. 2. See
also the Report to the Turkish Government on the visit to Turkey carried out by
the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (CPT), from 21 to 28 June 2012, Strasbourg, 10 October
2013. See also the response of the Turkish Government to the report of the
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to Turkey from from 21 to 28 June
2012, Strasbourg, 10 October 2013.

123 CoE, p. 1. See
also the Report to the Turkish Government on the visit to Turkey carried out by
the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (CPT), from 4 to 17 June 2009, Strasbourg, 31 March
2011. See also the response of the Turkish Government to the report of the
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to Turkey from 4 to 17 June 2009, Strasbourg,
31 March 2011.

124 CoE, p. 8. See
also the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance on Turkey, p. 8-9,
39- 40, adopted on 10 December 2010 and published on 8 February 2011.